Standing Committee G

[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Clause 43 - Air weapons: age limits

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 124, in 
clause 43, page 33, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).-[Mr. Paice.]

James Cran: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 249, in 
clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert- 
 '(3A) In section 23(2) add 
 ( ) he is using the weapon or ammunition on private property with the consent of the occupier in an activity which would be lawful other than by virtue of his age.'.
 Amendment No. 250, in 
clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert- 
 '(3A) In section 23(2)(b) after 'gallery', insert 'or on private property'.
 Amendment No. 254, in 
clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert- 
 '(3A) In section 23(2) add- 
 ''(c) he is using the weapon on private premises or property with lawful authority but where a person has with him an air weapon on any premises or property in circumstances where he would be prohibited from having it with him but for this subsection it is an offence for him to use it for firing any missile beyond those premises or property.''.'.
 Amendment No. 126, in 
clause 43, page 33, leave out lines 31 to 34.
 Amendment No. 127, in 
clause 43, page 33, leave out lines 36 and 37.

Matthew Green: When we adjourned for lunch, I was on the point of concluding my speech with the thought that we must ensure that when tackling the problem of antisocial use of air weapons we do not prevent activities that in many parts of the country are regarded as legitimate. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the suggestions that have been made, or that he will at least consider some alternatives.

John Randall: I start by apologising to the Minister. In the debate on clause 42, I caused him high frustration by saying that I did not think that the clause would do anything. I say that because I have such great respect for him as an ex-Whip. I believe that ex-Whips in whatever form can provide great expertise to Committees. He has persuaded me of their merits.
 As I listened to the contributions on clause 43 before lunch, I was tempted, because of the tragedy that was outlined, to think that there was some merit in upping the age limit. I confess that I am not entirely au fait with the ways of the countryside and how the farming community trains up its youngsters to shoot 
 rats and so forth, but I am not entirely convinced that the provisions would do the right thing. I trust the Minister implicitly, but perhaps this would be a good moment for him to reconsider the matter. Perhaps the age limit is too high. I understand that there are compelling reasons in favour of change, but I think the Government should reconsider the question of private land. 
 As I said, I have no problem with the measures, but there is a question whether the responsible use of airguns on private land should be allowed. The trouble with this, as with all the proposed legislation, is that most of the people involved are completely law abiding and go about their pursuit perfectly reasonably, but the activities of a handful might mean that those lawful and pleasurable activities will be curtailed. There will be time to re-examine some of the issues-perhaps not in Committee, but there is always Report, Third Reading and the other place-so that we can see whether we are punishing a huge majority because of the misdeeds of a few.

James Cran: Order. Before I call the Minister, may I make it clear that, alas, the consumption of coffee is not allowed in the Committee Room? I ask you, Caroline Flint, to take your coffee outside with you.

Bob Ainsworth: First, let me say that, as an ex-Whip, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was one of the least frustrating contributors to the previous debate. I say that knowing that no one would dare to bear down on me in the present company.
 I shall try to respond to the debate, but I cannot remember some of the points that were made this morning on the more general issues. The amendments are designed to retain the existing age limit on owning or possessing an air weapon, or to mitigate the effects on legitimate shooters of the increase in the age limit. The intention behind clause 43 is to tackle the misuse of air weapons by young people by ensuring that they do not have unsupervised access to such weapons. 
 There has been a steady rise in the misuse of air weapons in recent years. In 2001-02 there was a 21 per cent. increase in such offences. Such misuse can cause serious nuisance, crime and injury, and most instances of misuse involve young people. The Government are determined to curb that trend and we believe that raising the age limit from 14 to 17 is an important part of achieving that. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that maturity is an issue. 
 Much of the nuisance occurs in rural as well as in urban communities. There is an annoying notion being peddled around that an MP's understanding the countryside is dependent on the constituency that he or she represents or on the party that he or she belongs to. I am the proud representative of the very urban constituency of Coventry, North-East, where I was born and raised. However, I have never considered myself a townie, and as a youngster I spent most of my time and recreation in the countryside. That notion ought to be knocked on the head. 
 I thank the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for the thought that he has given to the issue of raising the age limit and the attempt that he has made to reach a conclusion on how to mitigate some of the consequences of doing so. I am mindful that there are many legitimate uses for air weapons and many responsible young shooters. I am also aware of the concerns expressed by shooting organisations and other bodies such as the Countryside Alliance. As I said earlier, I consulted the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, whose representatives I thank for their careful and thoughtful input to attempts to draw the line in the right place and to determine how we could raise the age limit without harming activities, such as pest control, that we do not necessarily want to prevent but that can involve young people using air weapons on farms. We do not wish to interfere with such activities. 
 I know that when it first saw the Bill the British Association for Shooting and Conservation was slightly concerned about shooting on private land, because although we had discussed that issued with the association and other organisations, we had not accurately got down our thoughts when drafting the Bill. In dealing with the hon. Gentleman's amendments, I think that we have still not quite got there. It is a drafting problem. There was no intention to impinge on that area. In drafting the Bill we could either rule out the private land issue, or include it with a view to amending it at a later date, but let me make it clear that there was no attempt to row back on some of the intentions that we had right from the start. 
 We had some very constructive engagement with organisations that were concerned about the issue. To address those concerns, I have already agreed to look at the options for allowing some unsupervised shooting on private land, but we must be careful to ensure that any such shooting does not cause a nuisance to neighbours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes said, that will be a particular issue where the private land is in an urban area with neighbours close by. Amendment Nos. 249 and 250 do not go far enough in addressing that point. 
 I am far more encouraged by amendment No. 254. I do not want to argue with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, because he is trying to achieve exactly what we want to achieve, but it is not clear why he included both ''private premises'' and ''property'' in the amendment. I think that he is just taking a belt-and-braces approach, but the legislation already defines premises as including any land, so there is no reason to go further, unless he was thinking about something else when he framed the amendment. I would need to look closely at the concept of lawful authority, which implies something wider than just the consent of the owner. 
 Furthermore, none of the amendments includes a lower age limit, so they would theoretically allow a five-year-old to shoot unsupervised, which I am sure is not the hon. Gentleman's objective.

James Paice: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister is addressing the amendments, and for his kind remarks about my efforts. He is right: I certainly did not intend a five-year-old to be able to walk round with an air weapon; that is a lacuna in my proposal. As for premises and property, I was simply taking a belt-and-braces approach, as he suggested.
 I intervened to point out something that I should perhaps have said earlier. I tabled an amendment, which unfortunately has not been selected, to deal with the issue of the adult who provided the weapon. Under that amendment, which is to the next clause, anyone who gave or lent an air weapon to someone under 17 who misused it would have been liable for the offence along with the young person. That would go a long way towards meeting some of the concerns of Government Back Benchers. As I said, the amendment has not been selected, so we shall not debate it, but I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind as a possible way of finding the way forward that he talks about.

Bob Ainsworth: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and I am sure that we can find a solution. I say to any members of the Committee who might be concerned about our trying to deal with this issue that we need to think about two points. One was raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). If we wanted to take action in this respect, we would potentially be putting in place a measure that was unenforceable in many parts of the country and bringing the law into disrepute by so doing. Even if we wanted to go there, the point made by the hon. Gentleman is valid.
 The second point concerns the interpretation of the terms ''private land'' and ''public land''. Public land is land to which the public has access by payment or otherwise, so a canal towpath, public rights of way and so on could be covered. We need not fear that we are necessarily creating a problem in that regard. There are issues about proximity to residences. I am not sure that we can deal with them in greater detail than amendment No. 254 and the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire deal with them. However, if we genuinely want to deal with misuse and not prevent what most people think is the appropriate use of weapons, we are close to reaching an accommodation that will do that. 
 I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment in the light of the comments that I have made and our continuing work to bring into being something that is close to amendment No. 254.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister and I will come back to him on that point, but will he address the other issue that I raised about young persons, perhaps those who compete in target shooting, being able to transport their weapons? I know that that issue has been raised with the Minister in a number of quarters.

Bob Ainsworth: I will deal with that. The amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not selected, but it deals with an important issue
 that we need to consider. I am not so sympathetic to the arguments being advanced, but I will listen. I fully acknowledge that there is an issue of private land; we must deal with that and we will, as I have said. I am more than happy to continue to listen to arguments about the carriage of weapons, but we are talking about 14, 15 or 16-year-olds who are involved in gun sports carrying weapons in public places without any parental or other adult supervision. I am not certain that the clause would create the problem that others envisage, but I would like to hear from people who think that there will be a problem.
 Many responsible parents and young people who are involved in gun sports keep their rifles in gun clubs. Parents certainly ferry around young people who are involved in various activities. I am not convinced that we need to have very young people carrying weapons around the streets, even if those weapons are wrapped and buckled in cases. I am not opposed to people being able to go about their activities, but I do not wish to create a big loophole in the powers that we wish to give to the police to prevent misuse. I am not as convinced on that issue as I am on the private land issue.

Shona McIsaac: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that one of the concerns is that those young people could become victims of crime and the weapons could be stolen? Surely supervision is preferable to offer protection to those young people from the loutish elements in our community.

Bob Ainsworth: I am not sure how significant that is as a contributory issue, but I certainly take on board my hon. Friend's comments.
 I do not wish to close the door entirely, and if people wish to convince me that there is a problem, I am prepared to continue to give it consideration. The private land issue certainly needs to be dealt with. I am trying to deal with the other issue clearly and honestly. I am not certain that there is a need for 14-year-olds to be carrying guns around the streets without any supervision, even if those weapons are covered and buckled. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw his amendment, but I thank the Opposition and the organisations that have been following our procedures for their constructive input. We must find a way forward that maximises the effectiveness of the tools that we wish to give to the police to deal with misuse while minimising the impact on people who are taking part in sports or other legitimate activities. We do not wish to inconvenience them to any degree greater than is necessary.

James Paice: It is a great shame that you were not with us this morning, Mr. Cran. You would have been very interested in what I believe was one of the best debates that we have had in this Committee. We were able to address a serious issue with a considerable amount of unanimity on the desire to resolve it, even if hon. Members did not entirely agree on all of the issues.
 On the issue of carriage, I heard what the Minister said. I will draw it to the attention of the various shooting organisations that he still remains to be 
 persuaded on that matter, and no doubt they will produce the evidence that they believe is appropriate. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, I hope it has become obvious during this morning's proceedings that I have a little more knowledge of this issue than many, having studied a lot of work on it over the years. I am not aware of any evidence to the effect that young people carrying airguns are more likely to have them stolen. I am not saying that it could not happen, but bearing in mind that the law has stood for 30 years, I am not aware of any evidence that that has been a regular feature. We must be careful to have a sense of proportion about what may or may not happen. 
 I am grateful to the Minister for his comments about private land. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not think that changing the age limit is either necessary or right. That is the view of the Firearms Consultative Committee that he quoted earlier, and I have seen its representations to him. I recognise that the Government take a different view. Although the discussion has inevitably centred on the countryside and farmland, I do not consider this a purely rural issue. For many people who live in urban areas, the nuisance use of air weapons is a significant urban issue that needs to be addressed. As the Minister has said, I have tried to come forward with proposals that will help to address it. 
 It is perfectly reasonable for an adult take responsibility. I take as an example my own situation. When I was in my early teens-a long time ago-my father gave me an air rifle. It would have been perfectly reasonable to hold him responsible if I had misused it-I do not suggest that I did misuse it. If someone makes an air weapon available to a young person, it is reasonable that they should then be responsible for ensuring that it is used safely and properly. I do not know why the amendment I tabled was not selected-no doubt you know why that is so, Mr. Cran, but I do not. It is an important part of the mix that the Minister is seeking to address what we all agree is a problem. 
 The hon. Member for Stockton, South, who is not here this afternoon, has a tragic constituency record and I recognise and understand the sincerity of her views. An objective person would agree that the idea of licensing all these weapons is a perfectly intellectual argument, but I share the Minister's view-as does the Association of Chief Police Officers-that it is wholly impractical and out of proportion. I recognise her strength of feeling on that matter, and I hope that she does not misunderstand my reasons for taking a different view. 
 There are those in the sporting world who take the view that we should fight to the last ditch on the issue of the age limit and to keep it where it is. My hon. Friends and I want to find a way forward that will allow young people to continue to use air weapons on private property in the way that they traditionally have done. As long as they do not use them unlawfully, that is the way forward that we should try to find. 
 I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words. He questioned my use of the word ''lawfully''. That is the only section of the amendment on which I took advice. 
 Someone asked me earlier where the wording of the amendments came from, which I took as a mortal insult as I had drafted them all myself. Someone suggested that I should use ''with the consent of the occupier'', but I was advised that ''lawful authority'' is a traditional legal phrase that covers not only the occupier but the person who holds the shooting rights, who may be a different person. It also ensures that the weapon is being used lawfully on the land and not for shooting something should not be shot at. The Minister will look at that.

Bob Ainsworth: If I table an amendment that includes the term ''lawful authority'', the hon. Gentleman will be nothing other than pleased. I am not saying that he is wrong-we just need to look at it and understand it.

James Paice: I appreciate that point. If the Minister comes forward with such an amendment I will not say, ''I told you so''.
 The issue is serious. I think that the Minister understands that the activities of tens of thousands of young people stand to be seriously affected by the clause. I understand why he thought he should start with a ban and rein back with amendments rather than proposed something about private land that he then must change. I am simply concerned that we get the provision right before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I accept that the Minister will genuinely seek a way forward. If my amendments help him in that, I am content. I do not know when the Report stage will be, but it would be helpful if the measure could be put right before we send the Bill to the other place. In the light of this debate, which I thoroughly appreciate, and the Minister's sincere response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Prohibition of certain air weapons

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 239, in
clause 44, page 34, line 4, at end insert- 
 '(2A) In section 5 (weapons subject to general prohibition) after subsection (1)(ae) insert- 
 ''(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a selfcontained gas cartridge system (whether powered by air or carbon dioxide);''. 
 (2B) If at the time when subsection (2A) comes into force a person has in his possession an air rifle, air gun or air pistol of the kind described in section 5(1)(af) of the Firearms Act 1968 (c.27) (inserted by subsection (2A) above)- 
 (a) section 5(1) of that Act shall not prevent the person's continued possession of the air rifle, air gun or air pistol, 
 (b) section 1 of that Act shall apply, and 
 (c) a chief officer of police may not refuse to grant or renew, and may not revoke or partially revoke, a firearm certificate under Part II of that Act on the ground that the person does not have a good reason for having the air rifle, air gun or air pistol in his possession. 
 (2C) But subsection (2B)(a) to (c) shall not apply to possession in the circumstances described in section 8 of that Act (authorised dealing).'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 257, in 
clause 44, page 34, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
 Amendment No. 258, in 
clause 44, page 34, line 10, after 'dangerous', insert 
 'by virtue of the fact that it can be readily converted to be capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or other like propellant'.

Bob Ainsworth: We have tabled amendment No. 239 to make specific provision for banning the sale, transfer, import and manufacture of certain airguns using the self-contained air cartridge system as announced earlier this year. Existing owners will be allowed to retain them on a firearms certificate. This action has become necessary because of the problems that have arisen in relation to certain air pistols that are powered by this self-contained air cartridge system. They can be converted in several relatively straightforward ways to take conventional ammunition. Consequently, weapons using the system have been used in an increasing number of criminal acts.
 A significant number of these conversions have been submitted to the Forensic Science Service, which is aware of their use in at least 80 serious offences, including murders, attempted murders and serious woundings, in England and Wales since the beginning of 2001. Proposed new subsection (2A) adds a new paragraph to section 5(1) the Firearms Act 1968 that means that any person who has in his possession or purchases, acquires, manufactures, sells or transfers one of these guns without first obtaining the Secretary of State's authority commits an offence. 
 We recognise that the majority of existing owners use their guns in a wholly proper and legal way and have no wish to convert them. That is why we have given a special dispensation to existing owners that will allow them to retain possession under the authority of a firearms certificate in accordance with section 1 of the 1968 Act. In the circumstances, we do not think that it is necessary for existing owners to show good reason for owning the gun. However, we think that it is important when issuing the certificate to existing owners of these weapons to retain the elements relating to fitness and not representing a danger to public safety or to the peace. 
 In all other respects the normal procedures will apply for obtaining a certificate. Proposed new subsection (2C) is intended to put dealers on the same footing as any person who deals in prohibited weapons. We have made it clear that we do not want any future sales of that type of air weapon to take place, or existing stocks to be sold on to others. Anyone wishing to sell such guns will in future need to 
 obtain a section 5 authority to possess them as well as to sell them abroad. 
 Let me comment on the other amendments in the group. Amendments No. 257 and 258 would do away altogether with the order-making power, or would narrow it so that the only weapons covered would be those that can be converted to discharge a missile by the force of gunpowder or other like propellant.

James Paice: Before the Minister goes too far in attacking my amendments, I draw his attention to the fact that they were tabled after his amendment and should therefore be considered in light of the assumption that his amendment has already been accepted. I realise that on their own they are not necessary, but I believe that when linked to the Government amendment, they are.

Bob Ainsworth: I was not in the mood to attack the hon. Gentleman's amendments.
 Although we now propose a specific control in relation to self-contained gas cartridge systems, that cannot be the end of our efforts to stop criminals getting hold of firearms. It is just as important that any safeguards that we introduce should be capable of being applied against new designs that might come on to the market. We therefore think it prudent to have an order-making power that will enable the Secretary of State to make provision in respect of any air weapons that appear to be ''specially dangerous''. 
 I know that concerns have been expressed that the power could be used to ban a wide range of air weapons, to the extent that we could end up with even more stringent controls on such weapons than on other firearms. That is what we are aiming to achieve. I remind the Committee that any air weapon would first have to be regarded as ''specially dangerous''. Secondly, any order would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. In the light of those assurances, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments and to support Government amendment No. 239. 
 We must remember that the guns are already classified as firearms, so it is not possible to use section 1 of the Firearms Act 1982, which makes special provision for controlling imitation firearms that are readily convertible to firearms. Although we could have dealt with that without using primary legislation, through the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969, it would have resulted in rifles becoming subject to certification, whereas revolvers, because of their length, would have become prohibited weapons.

James Paice: As I said, our amendments were tabled after having seen the Government amendment. First, I share the Minister's view that we have a serious problem with the Brocock brand of air pistol, although others that may be as easily converted may be developed. Like the Minister, I have had discussions about whether there was another way of dealing with them, because I do not like banning things on principle. I would have preferred it if another way could have been found, but I have come
 to the same conclusion as the Minister: there is no alternative. The air pistols are so easily converted that he probably has no choice but to take the power to ban them and anything like them.
 I tabled the amendments and the Minister asked me to withdraw them, but I have not moved them. I tabled them because I wanted to challenge him. The amendment that he has tabled, which gives a fairly wide-ranging set of powers, rightly addresses the issue of air weapons that can be converted. Given that, why does he then think that it is still necessary to have clause 44(3)? The Minister is effectively saying, ''We've got a set of specific powers, but we're also going to have a range of general powers.'' It is worth making the point that subsection (3) will amend the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. It would have been perfectly simple to remove the exclusion of air weapons from that, rather than have all the paraphernalia in clause 44. Section 1(4) of the 1988 Act provides powers 
''If it appears to the Secretary of State that the provisions of the principal Act relating to prohibited weapons or ammunition should apply to . . . any firearm (not being an air weapon)''
 and so on. I therefore do not see why the Minister could not remove the exclusion of air weapons, which would give the Home Secretary all the powers that he needed. 
 The purpose of tabling the amendment was to challenge the Minister to explain why the general power and the specific power are needed. The general power in the clause would have allowed him to ban Brococks and similar weapons, but he has now decided to include detail about self-contained gas cartridge systems. That is fine and I understand that, but why does the Minister still want the general power? As he rightly accepts, that provision raises the suspicion that the power may be used more widely in future by someone who has perhaps taken less of a genuine interest than the Minister has. 
 The Minister is familiar with my other point, which is that my hon. Friends and I are generally suspicious when Secretaries of State are given wide-ranging powers to do things in future that do not require primary legislation. The intention behind amendment No. 258 was to get some detail on the dangerousness of a weapon that can be converted to be 
''capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or other like propellant''.
 I conclude by asking the Minister to explain why he has put the words 
''whether powered by air or carbon dioxide''
 at the end of proposed new section 5(1)(af) of the 1968 Act. I would have thought that reference to a self-contained gas cartridge system would be perfectly adequate and self-explanatory. I am concerned that that wording might restrict the application of the provisions-somebody could develop a weapon powered by nitrogen, for example. Specifying air or carbon dioxide seems to exclude other gases, which is unnecessary, so I would be grateful if the Minister considered that. 
 From what I have said it is obvious that we shall not oppose the clause. It is regrettable that it is necessary, given that the criminal fraternity has found 
 it so easy to convert such weapons to fire proper bullets. Very reluctantly, I accept that the Government's proposals are necessary, although I would be grateful if the Minister explained why he needs to introduce the specific powers that are detailed in the amendment, in addition to the general powers that were already in the clause.

Nick Hawkins: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I understand entirely where the Government are coming from, so I do not plan to dissent from their thinking in the way that I did on some earlier clauses. I simply want to mention the concerns that the British Shooting Sports Council has raised with me. Before I do, however, I echo what my hon. Friend said about how the Conservative party recognises the extent of the problem and accepts the reason for the Government's motivation to take the powers that they propose to take on the misuse of weapons that are easily converted and that have been such a criminal menace. This debate is therefore of a different kind from that which we had on the last two clauses.
 As the BSSC makes clear, the Government have stated publicly that they want to ban the importation, transfer, sale and manufacture of all such air cartridge weapons. The Minister made it clear this morning that while they are proposing certain amendments to the Bill, the Government are also undertaking a more far-reaching review of all firearms legislation. I anticipate that the Minister will say that they are looking again at the question of importation in that review. 
 The Government's proposal in clause 44 does not, in the view of the BSSC, fully take into account the fact that many legitimate sporting shooters own airguns because they do not have to obtain a firearms certificate, which would at least double the cost of the weapon. The BSSC has said that the Government might ban air cartridge system guns outright and then provide compensation-has happened under the scheme started by the previous Government after Dunblane and carried on under the present Government. That would be an alternative approach. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with the BSSC's serious concern about the issue. The fact that it is suggesting a ban reinforces the fact that it is a responsible body. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit in which I am making the suggestion. It is important to have his reply on the record.

Bob Ainsworth: Let me say to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that we put in ''by air or carbon dioxide'' in order to avoid doubt and to cover future developments. We did it having taken advice on the drafting of the legislation as well as on what was potentially available. However, the hon. Gentleman's point seems reasonable. Perhaps we should think about it, given that something that is different again may well be around the corner. I shall be happy to think about the point and to consider whether we are creating a potential problem rather than avoiding doubt.
 The wording of the clause is complex. We are trying to cope with future developments in technology or 
 fashion and we need a new power. The existing power in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 requires the weapons not to have been generally available before 1988, and operates as a total ban. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman-and will copy the letter to the rest of the Committee-to spell out why subsection (3) is necessary, so that we are clear before Report about what is intended and what is not. I want to allay his fears about the provision being wider than we want it to be. 
 On the issue of compensation, I can tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that the firearms in question have been used for criminal purposes on a significant number of occasions. It is incumbent on the Government to take action to prevent their further misuse, and we believe that we have struck a fair balance between the interests of the individuals who own the guns and the wider public interest. Existing owners will be able to retain the weapons for their own use, and retailers will be able to run down stocks and obtain authority to sell any surplus overseas if they wish, as will manufacturers. We do not believe that compensation is payable in those circumstances. 
 It may well be that there are those who wish to continue to own those weapons. Many owners, as I have said, own them responsibly and use them responsibly. However, it is undeniable that the weapons are being widely misused. I have no criticism of the manufacturers, who at our request have put in place a voluntary import control and have co-operated with the Forensic Science Service in trying to find a technical fix. I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire: if a technical fix had been possible-if we had been able to render the weapons unconvertible, or very difficult to convert-that would have been far and away the best solution. The manufacturers tried to help us to achieve that, but it has defeated them and the Forensic Science Service. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Closure of noisy premises

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 260, in
clause 45, page 34, line 35, leave out 'public'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 261, in
clause 46, page 35, line 16, leave out 'public'.

Matthew Green: The amendments are related. They are intended to make this part of the Bill more effective. The Local Government Association suggested them, arguing that
''The word 'public' should be removed as it is an inaccurate reference. Most 'nuisances' particularly in regard to noise are classified in law as 'private' rather than 'public' nuisances. For a nuisance to be public there has to be other issues in addition to noise involved such as rubbish, odour etc.''
 The LGA stated: 
''The use of the word 'public' effectively cancels out the new powers granted by the clause to local authorities as most noise nuisances are private. As a result these powers would most likely be infrequently used and thus not tackling the real issue. Removing the word public will give local authorities clear powers to make a closure order in relation to premises where both private and public nuisance is being caused.''
 Perhaps the Minister will tell me that that is nonsense and that the problem does not exist. However, on the assumption that we are trying to make this part of the Bill work, I hope that he will consider the amendments.

John Randall: Is the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument that the clause would be more effective if it were to state simply that
''a . . . nuisance is being caused''?

Matthew Green: Yes.
 As I said, the LGA helped with the amendments. It suggested that the word ''public'' should be removed because that would enable local authorities to use this part of the Bill more effectively. It is possible that the advice that I have received is wrong. If that is the case, I am sure that the Minister will tell me so.

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief, although as the amendments are minor, we could have a stand part debate on the clause.
 I too received the LGA briefing-as, no doubt, have many other Committee members. It states that although the suggested closure powers for noisy premises relate only to public nuisance, most noise nuisances are private nuisances. Under the clause as drafted, the usefulness of the power is limited, and the LGA wants it to be extended to include private nuisances. That is worthy of debate. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response to the Liberal Democrat amendments. After that, we might deal with some of the wider issues on noise nuisance in the stand part debate.

Bob Ainsworth: Clause 45 gives a power to local authority chief executives to issue closure notices to licensed premises from where noise is causing a public nuisance and where the closure of the premises is necessary to prevent the nuisance. The power can be delegated to environmental health officers under clause 46.
 The wording of clause 45 on the power to issue closure orders, including the reference to public nuisance, is the same as the police powers to close premises under the Licensing Bill. The term ''public nuisance'' has been used in clauses 45 and 46 because it has wide meaning in common law, including nuisance caused to a section of the public. The power relates only to licensed premises and is not designed to deal with disputes between individual neighbours where noise might cause a private nuisance. It would not be appropriate to give EHOs a power of closure wider than the powers that have already been given to police officers. 
 I say to the hon. Member for Ludlow that the normal powers, such as noise abatement procedures, can still be used against licensed premises that are causing a private nuisance to a single near neighbour. In the clause, we are talking about the power to close a 
 premises forthwith. We have already given that power to the police and we are now potentially extending that to a delegation of EHOs. That is only appropriate where there is a nuisance that clearly goes beyond a private nuisance. 
 As I said, other abatement powers are still available whereby people can go in and tell those on the premises what they have to do to respond adequately to a complaint and give them time to do so. We hope that those powers will be enforced properly. The new power will mean immediate, forthwith closure and should be considered only where there is clear public nuisance.

Matthew Green: The Minister has gone a long way to satisfy me that it is appropriate to keep the word ''public'' in the clause. It was important, however, to ask why it should be kept. The circumstances in which the Government intend the powers to be used have been made clear and make a lot of sense. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I will not take up much of the Committee's time, because the basic principle underlying the clause is good and I have no doubt that the chief executives of my two local authorities-Surrey Heath and Guildford, one of which is entirely in my constituency and one of which is partly in it-will find the additional power useful. I have often complained in the past, as the Minister has cause to know, that the Government are laying more and more duties on local authorities without providing the funds for them. In this case, I can genuinely say that the power to make closure orders will be useful to chief executives of local authorities. I have no doubt that it will be used on occasion.
 Committee members will have noticed that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I tabled a couple of amendments that were not selected, although they appear on the amendment paper. It would be out of order for me to speak to them since they have not been selected-I must confess to some puzzlement about that. I shall seek expert advice from the Clerk to find out why after the sitting. The fact that we tabled a couple of amendments shows that we were interested in the clause. We were trying to explore the Government's thinking. 
 There is an issue about subsection (2), which states: 
''This subsection applies to premises if-
(a) a premises licence has effect in respect of them, or
(b) a temporary event notice has effect in respect of them.''
 I wonder whether that limitation on a potentially useful power to a local authority chief executive is needed. The Minister partly dealt with that in responding to the Liberal Democrat amendments to the clause. We are trying to deal with antisocial behaviour, and as constituency MPs we all receive letters from people complaining about noisy events, but some of the most significant events that take place are completely unlicensed. I am talking about a situation where there is no premises licence or 
 temporary event notice. I received some letters a year ago about an illegal rave where some people invaded a factory unit, took it over and held an illegal rave. I am sure that the chief executive would have loved to have the power to issue a notice to make the premises subject to this order at that time, because the premises were otherwise empty. 
 I hear what the Minister says: that the provision is intended to be limited to licensed premises. Will he say a little more about why it cannot be made wider? Will the Government keep it under review? It is the kind of issue that may be raised in another place, where colleagues will ask, ''If we are doing this anyway in statute, why not make it a wider application?'' That is the point I wanted to make during the clause stand part debate. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

John Randall: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath touched on the issue I wanted to raise: illegal raves. I have had many problems with noise from unlicensed premises on which people are effectively trespassing. In such cases it is difficult to identify the owner-the problem often arises on a weekend or something like that. Both the police and the local authority seem-I am not an expert on the matter-to pass the buck of responsibility between each other while the poor neighbours have to suffer intolerable disruption over the weekend.
 I understand why the Bill includes the provision, but many people want to know why there is an omission under the clause headed ''Closure of noisy premises'', in that it deals strictly with licensed premises. It is the illegal side of things where one does not have much power. Without reopening the rural-urban debate, illegal raves can take place in an urban setting but equally people can set up on a field somewhere. Relatively few people are affected, but it is still be a nightmare for them. I was hoping to see such provision-it may be somewhere else in the Bill, and I will have a quick flick through, but I do not think that it is. 
 We write to the Department complaining about such problems and it says, ''Well, we're looking at it.'' We may have a good opportunity to deal with the issue on Report-or, if the Government cannot look at it by then, perhaps in the other place. It is a matter of great interest to many of our constituents.

James Paice: I welcome the clause. There is no doubt that noisy premises, be they pubs or clubs, can cause immense aggravation and social nuisance in some parts of the country. It might be churlish to say so, but it would have made more sense to put the provision into the Licensing Bill, which gives the premises licences in the first place. It would seem more logical to put the power to remove the licence in the same Bill. Be that as it may, it is an important power.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge expressed the concern that the provision does not address the problem in both town and country of unlicensed activities. A year or so ago a farmer found a rave going on in his barn. To stop it, he turned off the 
 power, but the police, rather than doing anything about the illegal rave taking place on his premises, promptly threatened him with prosecution under health and safety legislation for turning off the power. The issue needs to be addressed and I hope the Government will do that at some stage. It is an omission not only from clause 45, but from the noise section of part 7. 
 As far as the provision goes it is welcome-I was going to say ''wealthy'', because my eyes alighted on the fine not exceeding £20,000, which seems a significant sum to me, but is probably peanuts when seen in the context of the profitability of some nightclubs. Nevertheless, I recognise that it is necessary, although I hope that the Minister will understand that some of us think we should look more carefully at what is taking place in unlicensed premises. 
 That links to the issue of immediacy. If there is one theme that has run through debates on most parts of the Bill, it is that many of the powers being given to the police or local authorities cannot be used immediately. They require areas to be designated, and so on. In this case, the clause provides that 
''The chief executive . . . may make a closure order''.
 He is obviously not going to do so at 1 o'clock in the morning, when the problem arises. The Minister is nodding; perhaps he will come back to me if I have got that wrong. Most people suffering from antisocial behaviour want action then and there, not a lot of consultation before anything can be done and the necessary orders can be obtained. I hope that the Minister can allay that concern that he will that if an unacceptable noise is coming from a nightclub, the clause will allow it to be closed then and there, not at some stage in the distant future.

Annette Brooke: The Liberal Democrats also support the measure. I was thinking along the same lines as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire in wondering why on earth the provisions were not in the Licensing Bill. In fact, I was about to seek some assurances that everything fully ties up, because it is quite difficult to marry two pieces of legislation that deal with the same important issues. In addition, I too think that there is a problem of the time that it will take to take action. Perhaps the Minister will expand on that.
 I would like to say a little more about private nuisances at private events. I am not quite so concerned about an event held inside a barn, but in Poole a whole stadium area was invaded, and the noise went on for hours and hours-for the whole weekend-until it was finally brought to a halt. Clearly, there is a gap in the provision. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that there are powers that could be used, but many people in the vicinity did not get any sleep at all that night because of the loud music. I make those comments, but I am generally supportive of the measure, because the issue needs tackling.

Bob Ainsworth: The power in the clause is there for chief executives to delegate. We must think about to
 whom the power to close premises will be delegated. The decision needs to be taken at a fairly senior-or the senior-level in an organisation. Having said that, the power can be delegated to environmental health officers and used immediately. Obviously, in some circumstances, those officers would need to act in conjunction with the police, who have the same power, but they can do what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire urges us to enable them to do, even, if necessary, at 1 o'clock in the morning. The thought of my chief executive doing that herself at 1 o'clock amused me.

Vernon Coaker: Why not?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes the appropriate complaint of the council tax payer: why not?

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because it gives me the opportunity to place on record something that impressed me in the past few days. I heard that one of the senior officers in my county council had agreed to attend a Sunday morning meeting with school governors. Sometimes, we do not pay enough credit to the most senior local authority officers. Because the buck stops with them, they often give up their own time, including at weekends, and sometimes work early in the morning or late at night. It is easy for us to forget that local authority chief officers sometimes work the most unsocial hours.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is just trying to set me up. I hope that Hansard will not be too widely distributed; I can feel a letter from my own chief executive coming on, telling me how many hours she works. The hon. Gentleman has just tried to make that worse.
 Raves are not necessarily an omission from the legislation, but the Opposition's points are valid. The matter would need to be dealt with in a new clause, and the size of the Bill, the logistics of getting it ready and parliamentary time must all be considered. However, raves are a relevant issue. Legislation was brought in to deal with them. Sections 63 and 65 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created a power exercisable by the police to stop preparations for a rave and to require people to leave a site where they were waiting for a rave to begin and leave a site where a rave was taking place. A failure to comply with a direction was made an offence, with a power of arrest attached. 
 We have identified trends designed to circumvent the existing legislation. An increasing number of indoor events are held without permission. Organisers are restricting the number of people at such events to just under 100 to try to get round section 63 of the 1994 Act. Once a direction to leave a site is issued under section 63, rave organisers simply seek to move to a new venue a short distance away, often in another police area. 
 That issue must be dealt with, but it is not appropriate that the clause should cover it. We promise to deal with the matter as soon as parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, let me say that I know that it is a problem in many 
 constituencies. We should not allow the police or anybody else to tell citizens that they have no powers to bring relief in such circumstances-there are occasions when they can take action using other powers. We have not yet introduced specific parliamentary powers to deal with the trends and with the rave organisers, but we will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

John Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that. That should be looked at urgently.
 I wonder whether I may air another constituency problem, which I am sure will be shared, although I do not think it is covered by the relevant provisions. There is a considerable problem in a part of my constituency where many motor bike enthusiasts gather during the night, revving up their engines and so forth. There are not many powers that can be used to deal with such matters and I wonder whether anything could be done about that. The word ''premises'' is the problem. If that definition could be widened, it might provide some power to disperse those attending such events. The problem occurs on the Stockley bypass and, depending on the weather, it happens early in the year-around Easter-throughout the summer and on bank holidays. It is intolerable for people living nearby.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman may recall the commencement date for the powers in the Police Reform Act 2002. Those powers are intended to deal with nuisance created by off-road motor cycles.

John Randall: On the road?

John Randall: I am trying to think whether the powers extended to the creation of off-road nuisance. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if we have not covered that. There are powers in section 59 of the 2002 Act to deal with vehicles causing nuisance. Those are in force now, and they cover situations on or off the road. Let me write to the hon. Gentleman and set out exactly what are those powers, so he can use the letter in his constituency. There is clearly a problem of awareness about the new legislation that is being implemented.

Annette Brooke: I should like to make a point that reinforces what all hon. Members have been saying. I recently encountered a problem on an industrial site. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Police Reform Bill, and in the end I got from the House of Commons Library the full notes on the new powers in the 2002 Act and sent those to the police. That is ludicrous-the police need to know more about what powers are available.

James Cran: Order. Mr. Ainsworth, I do not want us to be answering constituency questions all afternoon which are not strictly germane to the matter under consideration. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Bob Ainsworth: I will, Mr. Cran.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned the extension of some of the powers that have been introduced over a relatively short period. Those powers must be presented in a usable way and promoted so that we are not relying 
 solely on the management techniques of the country's 43 police forces. We aim to intervene by making knowledge of the law-and changes to the law-more widely known than they obviously are at present. The problem that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) raised is a genuine one.

Vernon Coaker: I wish to pursue that point. Clause 45, like many others, introduces new powers. We have just heard another example of a power that is unknown. Unknown powers are commonplace, and we do not wish those in clause 45 to go the same way. The fact that local authorities, the police and other agencies simply do not know that they have certain powers is a real issue, and we simply must find a way to ensure that people understand those in clause 45, as well as all the others that we are creating.

Bob Ainsworth: I accept that point entirely. We must address issues that are of concern, but we must also make certain that our agenda is being followed up. I give my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole a commitment to consider how we can intervene to raise awareness of the changes that have been made and the powers to deal with the problems that exist.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Closure of noisy premises: supplemental

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief on this matter. It seems to me that clause 46 follows on from clause 45-[Laughter.] Perhaps that was a statement of the obvious. It not only follows numerically but makes common sense of clause 45.
 I have a query about the use of environmental health officers. Subsection (2) allows the chief executive to authorise an EHO to exercise any power or duty under clause 45(1). That is sensible, but will the Minister tell the Committee whether guidance will be issued as to the seniority of the EHOs who may be used? In small councils, someone who is newly employed and relatively young can be a junior member of an environmental health department. One would not want to see junior local government officers put in a position where those organising noisy events might put them under threat. 
 We heard in the previous debate how events can get rowdy and out of hand. Does the Minister propose that guidance should be given so that junior members of staff cannot be landed in difficulties? I am sure that any responsible chief executive would not want that to happen. Nothing in the Bill addresses that matter. If the Minister is not able to issue guidance, perhaps he will state clearly for the record, so that it can be understood by people who read the account of our proceedings, that the chief executive should delegate only to somebody quite senior.

John Randall: I want to raise a couple of points. One matter that the Minister touched on worries me a little. Someone who is attempting to close down one of those events must, I imagine, have some form of police assistance. The event may be late at night, alcohol may have been consumed and tempers may be raised. That is apart from the obvious problem, which I shall not pursue, that at that time of night the police are often stretched and feel that they cannot provide sufficient numbers to cover a possible breach of the peace. Such instances sometimes occur when illegal encampments of travellers are to be moved on, and the police say that to do that they need more staff than they have.
 Then there is the issue of economics. Resources might have to be bought in from neighbouring forces. I am concerned that there might be a problem in that, if the powers existed, a local authority could ask for closure, but could be told that there was insufficient police cover for it to proceed. I do not know how we can address that issue; but I thought that I should raise it. Perhaps some guidance can go out to police forces. Just to bring my constituency into it-in case anyone has forgotten it-Uxbridge often suffers because if incidents occur towards the centre of London, officers are moved off our division and further in. If anything then crops up, they are short staffed. However brilliant he is, I do not think that the Minister is able to resolve that, but I thought that I should highlight the problem.

Bob Ainsworth: It is good to see that the ex-Whips mutual appreciation society continues. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman-the appropriate delegation of the powers-ties in with that mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I thought that we had covered the position: rather than giving powers that can be exercised by all environmental health officers, the Bill allows chief executives to delegate, in the hope that such executives will delegate to appropriate people who are able to make judgments about when they are able to act alone and when they need the support of police officers. Therefore, we had not intended to issue guidance. I shall think further about whether it is necessary. I am stepping on dangerous ground: the idea that my chief executive might be out at 2 o'clock in the morning enforcing such orders herself suggests that she does need guidance to be able to decide who should do it on her behalf. It is a serious issue, and I shall give it some thought.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Dealing with noise at night

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: Again, I can be brief. All our debates have covered particular problems at weekends and late at night. We have just discussed the involvement of senior people in local authorities. I understand that it is useful to have a clause that deals specifically with noise at night.
 In this clause, which amends the Noise Act 1996, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, what sort of approach has the Minister in mind in relation to the 1996 Act, which says that 
''sections 2 to 9 only apply to area of local authority if authority have so resolved or an order by Secretary of State so provides''?
 Have the Government issued, or are they minded to issue, any guidance to local authorities about whether they should make such resolutions or, alternatively, has the Secretary of State any rules that enable him to decide at what point he might issue an order? I do not have a problem with the phrasing of the clause, but it would be helpful to have some indication from the Minister of exactly how the Government would extend the guidance that they give to local authorities under the 1996 Act.

Shona McIsaac: I think that it was during the Committee's eighth sitting, when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was telling us of a constituent who had written to him about fireworks being used at inappropriate times of night, that I tried to intervene on the hon. Gentleman; but the Chairman called me to order. Had I been allowed to proceed, I would have said that fireworks are one of the chief causes of antisocial behaviour, as they can cause so much noise late at night. I have received not hundreds but thousands of representations on that matter.
 I understand that clause 47 deals also with residential properties, and I wonder whether powers exist to deal with noise related to fireworks at night. My hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that a private Member's Bill on that subject, of which I am a co-sponsor, is going through the House. I understand that the Third Reading debate will take place in a couple of weeks' time. Does the Minister's Department have any plans to deal specifically with the antisocial use of fireworks, either through that legislation or in some other way?

Vernon Coaker: Clause 47 is welcome, in that it gives local authorities more power to deal with noise at night. It deals with an issue that we have continually raised in Committee-the cultural change needed to ensure that the new powers are used, especially as we have trouble trying to get the authorities to use the existing powers. We ought to put a marker down that the Bill is a plea, by Parliament and the elected representatives of our communities to those responsible for implementing the law, that they should do so with a greater sense of vigour.
 I have a couple of specific questions. Like many other Committee members, I am sure that noise at night is an increasing problem. We have to deal with an increasing number of complaints about noisy parties, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes reminds us, about noisy fireworks. The clause would impose a fixed penalty notice, but I am not sure how much it would be. I wonder also what is the process for issuing such notices. Would it be easy for the local authority to issue them? What sort of evidence would be required, and would the person responsible for issuing them have a professional responsibility to issue a notice simply because there was a problem with noise? 
 In other words, is it a quick fix to some of the problems that we have to deal with in our constituencies, or will the power to issue fixed penalty notices be a bureaucratic process, one that is not easily used by those responsible for implementing them? Clause 47 makes some welcome and strengthening additions to the law, but I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to address those practical questions.

James Paice: I rise to follow what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has said so many times during the Committee's consideration of the Bill, which has been admirably wise. Whatever one's belief may be, the value of the Bill will lie in whether it makes any difference to the lives of ordinary people. The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the increasing problem of noise at night. In his response to a point made by my hon. Friend, the Minister said that quite often the problem is that people do not know-
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming-

James Paice: I always sympathised with hon. Members who were stopped in the middle of what they were saying. Now I know what it is like. I will have to remember what I was saying.

James Cran: All I ask is that the hon. Gentleman does not repeat what he has said.

James Paice: Sometimes what I have to say is so brilliant that it deserves repetition. I am sorry that you feel the way that you do, Mr. Cran. However, I entirely accept your ruling and shall try not to repeat or even to deviate.
 The point that I was trying make, without repeating it, is that the Minister said in relation to another issue that the problem is that powers are often not used. I believe that he was referring to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about raves. 
 The hon. Member for Gedling touched on the problem of noise at night. There is nothing more frustrating for ordinary people than being afflicted by a problem, in this case noise at night, and being told by the bureaucracy-the local authority officials, whoever they may be-''Oh well I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do about it.'' I am sure that almost every Member has gone to Ministers and asked why we cannot change the law on that, and the Ministers have said, ''Civil servants have told me that there are all these powers. Why aren't they using them?'' That has happened under every Government, including ours. On Thursday, or perhaps later, we will be discussing travellers, which is another example of where the problem arises. 
 Let me stick to the issue of noise at night, as you will want me to, Mr. Cran. It is clear that powers exist, and I hope that what the clause proposes will improve matters. My reason for intervening is to ask the Minister to explain why he believes that it will make such an improvement, because my understanding of the clause is that local authorities, unless otherwise 
 ordered by the Secretary of State, have discretion as to whether to make the resolution, under section 1, to apply sections 2 to 9. 
 In effect, the clause is saying, ''Never mind. You won't have to make the resolution. It automatically applies to you.'' However, that still leaves it up to the local authority to decide whether to apply it. The local authority still has the discretion to use it. I do not for a moment advocate that local authorities should therefore be told to apply it, because I do not believe that we should tell local authorities that they must have that discretion as part of delegated powers. I am interested to know why the Minister believes that the change will make any difference to whether the powers are actually used.

John Randall: Does my hon. Friend agree that a justifiable excuse for not using the powers may be the lack of resources? Local authorities or the police want to deal with these things, but with more and more things being heaped on them, they simply do not have the resources.

James Paice: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I am a very emollient sort of person, as he knows, and I am not going to blame the Government for the lack of resources available to local authorities, however true that might be. However, I am certain that lack of resources is part of the problem, but I must also say, after several years in this place, that I am convinced that resolve is as important as resources.

Liz Blackman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference in performance between local authorities that cannot be explained simply by resources or lack of them? It is more a question of resolving to exercise available powers rather than the simplistic explanation given by the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

James Cran: Order. I allowed the hon. Lady to get the point out, but I shall not allow a general debate on the performance of this, that or the next local authority.

James Paice: You are very wise, Mr. Cran. But there is a variation because local authorities have not taken the option to use these powers. Even removing the need for that first resolution does not mean that they will use them any more than they do at present. Why does the Minister think that it will make any difference?

James Clappison: I have a confession to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath referred to previous Ministers and previous legislation. I was the Minister who took the Noise Act 1996 through the House. This debate brings back to mind our debates about the adoptive nature of the power and the reasons why it should not apply to the whole country. My hon. Friend asked exactly the right questions and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. The Government appear to be applying the Noise Act throughout the whole country, without the requirement for a local authority to adopt
 it. However, they are lessening the duty that local authorities are put under because they do not have to provide the full night-time service under subsection (3).

Nick Hawkins: I did not know when I introduced the stand part debate that my hon. Friend was the Minister responsible. He will be glad to know that I mentioned that it was the previous Conservative Government who introduced that excellent piece of legislation. I am delighted to be reminded that my hon. Friend was the Minister.

James Clappison: Although it was a good piece of legislation, we would all have liked it to go further. If the Minister will tell me that this measure will go further, he will get plaudits from me rather than brickbats.

Bob Ainsworth: If we wanted to be cheap and party political, we could say that the hon. Gentleman introduced a piece of legislation that is so underused that we now have to put it right. But we would not want to do that. The hon. Gentleman made his confession and highlighted the central point. That shows how hard it is to legislate in this area and to do what is best. All the points that have been made are valid. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling talked about making it more usable. That is exactly what we are trying to do. The hon. Member for Uxbridge talked about resources and that is another issue that we are trying to address. We want to give local authorities a power that they can use without necessarily applying resources in areas where they do not want to.
 Clause 47 amends the Noise Act to end, for England and Wales, the previously adoptive character of sections 2 to 9. Under these proposals, it will apply those sections directly to all local authorities. Under the current adoptive regime, only 14 local authorities have adopted those sections. That is because only 14 have been prepared to provide the kind of facility that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was trying to encourage them to provide. From now on, all English and Welsh local authorities will have the power to investigate complaints for excessive noise at night, giving warning notices in respect of such noise and, where noise remains excessive after the service of a warning notice, either prosecute or, more likely, issue a fixed penalty notice. Therefore, whether or not the power is usable, a person will be able to give a notice. If the nuisance or noise does not cease within a reasonable period, which in many circumstances will be 10 minutes, a fixed penalty notice could be issued to the individual involved. The fixed penalty is set at £100. We are not changing any of that. We are freeing up local authorities from the need to provide a 24-hour service in order to be able to access the fixed penalty regime. 
 We are aware that the restrictions that accompany the formal adoption of the Act have been preventing its widespread use. Some local authorities, after reviewing local needs and available resources, cannot justify providing an 11 pm to 7 am noise response service seven days a week. As a result to date only 14 local authorities have adopted the Act and can 
 therefore issue noise fixed penalty notices. Accordingly, while applying sections 2 to 9 to all English and Welsh local authorities, clause 47 will relax the requirements governing a local authority's response to a complaint of excessive noise, permitting that to be more discretionary. 
 Night noise fixed penalty notices can be useful for dealing quickly and effectively with inconsiderate noisy neighbours. Such notices confront the noisemakers with the stark choice of shutting up within 10 minutes or facing a fixed penalty of £100. At night, the quick resolution of noise problems is vital. Making that useful tool readily available to all local authorities could make a real difference to the quality of life of people troubled by noisy neighbours. The Government intend to do that when-[Interruption.] What on earth does this note say?

James Clappison: Having heard the Minister's explanation and while he applies himself further to his notes, may I endorse the sentiments that he has expressed? It was the intention in 1996, and is certainly the intention now, that more action will be taken to deal with the problem of noisy neighbours. That will come about in due course.

Bob Ainsworth: What the hon. Gentleman tried to do in the Noise Act-in effect to provide a carrot and stick-was right. If someone is prepared to provide a service seven days a week to cover the night-time period, they have access to a quick and readily available remedy that they can impose on people who are imposing themselves on their neighbours. However, that has not worked. Many local authorities have found that they do not want to provide such a service. We could argue all day about whether they were right to decide that. We are relieving them of the responsibility. They can provide the service as a discretionary service if they wish to do so. They can still access fixed penalty notices. We are not changing the rules with regard to the decibel levels or the measuring of noise levels that is required to prove a nuisance. As I said, we are freeing up local authorities from the requirement to provide the service described.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Penalty notices in respect of graffiti or

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: It will be helpful to have a brief debate on the clause. I am glad to say that Opposition Members can welcome the fact that the Government propose to take further measures on graffiti and fly posting. I receive many letters from constituents about graffiti and fly posting, and I am sure that other members of the Committee receive similar letters.
 It is fair to say that all of us who are rightly proud of our country are depressed about the image that is sometimes conveyed, particularly to overseas tourists, by the amount of graffiti here. The problem is not by any means restricted to the UK-I have observed a lot 
 of graffiti in other European countries as well. However, it is undoubtedly the case that parts of our major cities-not only London-have been severely damaged by graffiti. Local authorities, companies and other bodies have to spend an appalling amount of money on removing graffiti. One thinks in particular of the problems faced by railway companies and London Transport in trying to clean graffiti off railway and tube carriages. We therefore welcome the fact that further powers are being taken in clause 48 to enable authorised officers of local authorities to issue penalty notices. However, I have some questions for the Minister about the powers that the Government are taking. 
 One of the issues on which I considered tabling an amendment, but decided not to do so, is the level of penalty that has been chosen. Unfortunately, some graffiti artists are quite wealthy, and I wonder whether the £50 penalty specified in subsection (9) will be enough of a deterrent. I am rather surprised that the penalty is so low. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind that? 
 It occurred to me that, although the power is useful, the Government need to consider whether they are imposing extra bureaucracy on local authorities. I have previously mentioned my concern about the imposition of more and more duties and powers on local authorities without accompanying funding. I am particularly conscious of that matter, having just opened a letter from the chief executive of my local authority, in which it is pointed out that Surrey Heath borough council has experienced a net loss this year, because the extra money that it has had to pay out in salaries and national insurance outweighed the increase that it received from the Government. That is not the Minister's fault, but it is nevertheless relevant. 
 I hope that the Minister can explain the thinking behind the low penalty payable in pursuance of a notice, but I understand that in subsection (10): 
''The appropriate person may by order substitute a different amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (9).''
 It is useful that local authorities have the opportunity to increase the maximum penalty, but I wonder whether we should be delegating such matters to them. It is more common for the Government to set out the level of a penalty in the Bill, and then to increase it in due course, if new legislation or inflation mean that the amount is too low. I hope that the Minister can comment on that, but I do not want him to read into what I said any opposition to further measures against those responsible for graffiti or fly posting. 
 On another point, subsection (2) says that a fixed penalty may not be used if the offence was motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards a person based on his belonging to a racial or religious group or towards members of a racial or religious group. I assume that the thinking behind that is that such an offence would be pursued separately by the police, using other powers for offences of race hatred. Can the Minister give some guidance on how local authorities should respond? Should they go and consult senior 
 officers in the relevant police force the minute that they identify such an offence? As that aspect of fly posting or graffiti is excluded from the power, can the Minister explain what local authorities should do if a vast number of racist posters suddenly go up in an area over a weekend?

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman said that he could imagine such things happening. In my constituency, Solomon court sheltered accommodation is particularly targeted by racist graffiti and posters, causing the elderly residents great distress.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Lady is right. That is already happening in certain areas, and even where it has not happened so far, it is possible to imagine it happening. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about that matter.

Liz Blackman: I want to confine my comments to a couple of points.
 I have never believed that the quality of the environment is an add-on. It is essential to people's self-esteem and feeling of well-being and it enables them to feel part of the community. I welcome the clause. 
 I want to take up one of the issues identified by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath concerning the funding of the imposition of penalty notices. The revenue raised by speed cameras is already recycled back into the police pot. Will the Minister consider ways in which the revenue taken from penalty notices-or at least some of it-might find its way back into the local authority pot?

James Cran: Order. I think that the issues that the hon. Lady is addressing appear in clause 50.

Liz Blackman: I beg your pardon, Mr. Cran.

John Randall: I have a couple of questions for the Minister.
 Will there be an age limit for penalty notices? That may be dealt with elsewhere in the Bill, or it may be a well-known fact of which I was not aware. I am not thoroughly up on graffiti artists; I have an idea that wealthy people go round doing such things. I am not sure about that, but I accept the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath on that matter. Such people are not necessarily impoverished, but some of them will be young and some will not. What effect would the Bill have on juveniles, or is that dealt with in existing legislation? 
 Is there anything in the Bill about obscenity in racial and religious graffiti? I can understand that deciding which words in a piece of graffiti were obscene would cause a sub-committee of departmental civil servants a problem-they would try to work out what points they would give for obscenity. Presumably fly posting comes under the Obscene Publications Act 1964? Is there any relevance in that? 
 My other question-and here I declare an interest-is whether fly posting includes advertising attached to lamp posts. I do not know whether that is a common practice in all constituencies. I know that it is only in Scotland that election notices are legally attached to lamp posts.

Nick Hawkins: No, it is done in various constituencies.

John Randall: In Uxbridge, we value our lamp posts. Some people use lamp posts and other street furniture for affixing adverts, such as ''Lose 20 stone in half an hour''. That one I did not take up.

Nick Hawkins: I am not going to intervene on my hon. Friend on the issue of losing 20 stone, but he may be interested to know that I had cause-for reasons that I will not bore the Committee with-to look into election posters being fixed to lamp posts. In certain constituencies, there are specific byelaws to allow that, whereas in other places it is illegal. I know of one constituency in Staffordshire where all the lamp posts had, alternately, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat posters on them, and I wondered why any of the parties had bothered to do that, because they completely cancelled each other out. However, when I checked, I was surprised to find that a byelaw to allow the practice had been passed.

John Randall: You will be as delighted as I am, Mr. Cran, to discover that we learn so much in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
 As I said, I have an interest. This is unfair to the bona fide retailers, who may have been trading in the same spot for over 100 years, who stick to the rules. Notices are put up, some by reputable companies-just about reputable, as they obviously do not offer quite the same value as others-and are left up for some time, unless they refer to an events such as a bank holiday weekend sale. I wonder whether that can be defined as fly posting, because if companies are advertising on those notices, it is obvious who is responsible for them. Those companies are advertising for nothing, whereas others have to pay to put up advertisement leaflets in prominent places, so it would be useful to slap a penalty notice on them for each poster. However, I do not know whether the Bill contains such a power.

Caroline Flint: I wish to make two points that follow on from the hon. Gentleman's comments and relate to the fixed £50 penalty notice.
 There may be companies that are getting others to fly post on their behalf. If that is the case, there is an issue about the level of the fine that the companies responsible should pay. We must also be clear that where a company passes the responsibility to another person-possibly a young person-for a few pounds, or more, that company must not escape its responsibilities if the person sticks up posters advertising its warehouse sale, for instance, in the streets of our communities. 
 I also want clarification on fixed penalty notices. As the Minister is aware, we had discussions in earlier debates about the age at which they will apply. 
 Without being ageist, one would assume people under 18 are responsible for a lot of graffiti, but earlier advice to the Committee was that notices would apply to those over 18, and only in pilot areas to those aged 16 and 17.

Vernon Coaker: May I make a couple of points, following on from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)?
 The age at which young people can be given a fixed penalty notice is a crucial issue. Most hon. Members think that the police should be able to issue fixed penalty notices to youngsters aged 10 and above, and, as will become apparent when we address clause 51, there is a debate about whether community support officers should be able to do that. That raises this question: if a young person under 16-perhaps 11 or 12-is responsible, should the payment of their fixed penalty notice be a matter for their parents? 
 A range of issues need to be clarified to make the clause as effective as possible. In my area, the majority of people who are responsible for graffiti are under 16, and if we do not have a clause that deals with that, the Bill will not make a lot of difference to the current situation. Generally, I welcome the clause-but with that proviso. 
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was right-I have taken a straw poll among Labour Members, and we, too, think that £50 is not enough. Will the Minister address that and find out whether £50 is as effective a deterrent as we would want? 
 I well understand why the Minister wants to exclude graffiti that is racially motivated or against religious groups, as we would all agree that it is so serious that other powers can deal with it. However, the speed at which graffiti is removed is important, whatever sort it is, and I wonder whether the guidance for local authorities will mention the speed at which they are expected to remove graffiti. 
 Graffiti is a problem for all sorts of properties and premises. We have huge debates in my constituency when graffiti appears on a garden wall or on the side of a shop. We get into a nightmare in which the local authority says that it will remove graffiti if it is on a public building, but not if it is anywhere private; or it says that it will remove graffiti if it can get payment for doing so from the person who owns the property. Will the Minister clarify whether penalty notices will be available to deal with graffiti on any building or structure?

James Paice: I want to follow the hon. Gentleman's sensible points with specific questions on two linked matters. Who exactly will be given the penalty notice? Does the authorised officer of the local authority have to spot somebody fly posting or spraying graffiti and make them culpable by giving them the fixed penalty? What happens in the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge talked about, which we all know to be commonplace, where the person doing the fly posting is acting as an agent for somebody else? Will the owner of the warehouse, or whoever is doing the sale, be liable and be hit by a fixed penalty? If so, £50 is nowhere near enough. That is the key issue for the Minister to address.
 Linked to that is the issue of removal. I know that you will rule me out of order, Mr. Cran, if I start to talk about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), which we will discuss later. However, they refer to the issue of removal. If, as I suspect-the Minister nodded earlier to suggest that I am right-the penalty notice must apply to somebody who is spotted doing the deed, surely clause 48 should include a power for the local authority officer to say, ''Remove that graffiti.'' That is not covered by a fixed penalty notice, so I would be grateful if the Minister explained why and said whether it could be covered.

Shona McIsaac: I want to ask one brief question. I appreciate what the clause is designed to achieve in respect of graffiti and fly posting, but-and this relates to what the hon. Member for Uxbridge was saying-I regularly receive complaints from my constituents about the proclivity of certain firms in the area to stick leaflets under car windscreens in car parks. I have had numerous complaints about that, sometimes because of the nature of the services and products advertised on those flyers. Will the clause catch that sort of behaviour?

Matthew Green: This has been an interesting debate. During its course, I have spotted another problem. A council officer may give a fixed penalty notice to the person spraying the graffiti; in that sense it is rather like a traffic warden issuing a parking ticket. However, a traffic warden can at least write down a registration number in his book. Unlike a policeman, the council officer will not have the authority to stop that person if they try to run off or demand their name and address. How can an officer give people fixed penalty notices, and pursue them if they do not pay, if he does not know who they are? If a policeman were doing that, there would be no problem, but I can foresee problems for authorised council officers. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that I may have missed something.

Bob Ainsworth: I have at least discovered the root of some of my problems during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is taking soundings on the Back Benches. The Whip was not here when he admitted it, but he is here now as my hon. Friend is deciding whether he supports the Government's position. I thought that I should make my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) aware of that, so that he could take the appropriate action at the appropriate time.
 Clause 48 gives authorised local authority officials the ability to issue fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting. The intention is that those notices will be used only in minor instances of those offences, which might not otherwise have been considered worth the time and expense of prosecution. We do not think that fixed penalty notices are appropriate for offences involving wholesale criminal damage, obscenity, or where racially motivated fly posting is part of the offence. In those cases, people should be prosecuted. The local authority should take the time and trouble to prosecute people, to provide the appropriate level of deterrent. However, as many hon. Members will know 
 from their constituencies, this is a growing problem. Methods are becoming more blatant and there is a need to provide an easy-to-use deterrent for those low-level instances of people who go round scrawling graffiti or fly posting. That is a great nuisance and we believe that the deterrent will be usable for such minor situations. 
 Offenders will have 14 days in which to pay the penalty, after which time a prosecution for the offence can be initiated. No proceedings will be brought where the payment of the fixed penalty has been made within 14 days. Clause 48 also prescribes how payment of the penalty is to be made. The penalty for such offences is currently set at £50, and it is aimed at the person who is fixing the fly poster or scrawling the graffiti. It is possible to prosecute the individuals who profit from the activity-the people who are behind it and are employing other people to do their work for them. 
 That is not easy; otherwise a lot more of it would be done. Such people do not make clear declarations about who they are; otherwise they would be prosecuted. They often put middlemen or legal problems in the way of prosecuting them as the people who stand to gain from the fly posting. This will not solve the whole problem-I do not pretend that it will. It will, however, be a useful intervention to provide a deterrent on those minor occasions where the local authority would otherwise say, ''It is not worth the court time or the aggravation. We are not going to prosecute in these cases''. That is why there is a propensity for the activity to grow and become a sizeable problem in many of our communities. 
 My hon. Friends were concerned about the age limits. Their concerns arose because they have logical minds; they thought that the fixed penalty notices applied in the same way as the others that we discussed earlier in the Bill. We would therefore have been talking about 18, but extending the age to 16 with an order-making power. That is not the case, because that power originates in different legislation. 
 The fixed penalty notices would apply to people over the age of 10-the age of criminal conviction for minors-but under-14s could not be convicted unless they knew that what they were doing was wrong. Potentially, therefore, the fixed penalty notice could apply to someone under the age of 14, but that would be difficult; it would be easier to apply to over-14s, which could catch many of the perpetrators of the crimes that my hon. Friends have mentioned. That is a different regime from that of the earlier fixed penalty notices, when we were looking to reduce the age. 
 I have talked about racist fly posting and graffiti, but we do not propose that fixed penalty notices should be used in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was concerned that we were giving the local authority the power to decide, but the appropriate person is the Secretary of State. In Wales, the appropriate person will be appointed by the National Assembly for Wales. Fly posting on lamp posts is covered by clause 49(1)(c)-[Interruption.] Instead of writing it clearly in the first place, someone is shouting out that it is 49(1)(e). 
 On the question of who gets the fixed penalty notices, the requirement will be either that the person should be caught in the act, or that someone can prove who was involved. That is a problem, but the provision will cover many circumstances. I know that blatant fly posting goes on in parts of Coventry-I am sure that it goes on in others parts of the country-and that people go along the ring road fixing posters to lamp posts from the back of a van. In such circumstances a registration number will be available, and that could provide a real deterrent.

Matthew Green: If a 16 or 17-year-old is caught writing on a wall, and if he gives a false name and address to the council officer, he cannot be dealt with, so a notice will have been handed out that will never be recovered. I wonder how on earth we can deal with that.

Bob Ainsworth: Sometimes the perpetrators or the vehicle registration numbers will be known, and then the fixed penalty notice would be a useful tool.
 We need to consider whether to make the individual clear up the mess or remove the notices. However, without further thought on the question of restorative justice and the other issues that I know people are interested in developing, to impose a requirement on the local authority that issued a fixed penalty notice to ensure that the person cleared up their mess would be a logistical problem that could stand in the way of issuing a fixed penalty notice in the first place. The authority would need the appropriate equipment and the logistics to stay and see that the job was done. 
 The issuing of the fixed penalty itself is at least a deterrent. It is some recompense for the trouble that has been caused, but we do not want to impose a logistical burden on those who might use the power. None the less, we should consider the question of whether we should oblige people to mend and put right what they have done. I am sure that we shall return to that subject, as well as many others.

John Randall: With regard to fixed penalty notices, what happens if those aged 14 or under do not pay? What is the next step? We would hope that the parents-or a parent-would pay up, but is there any compulsion for them to do so, and if not, what happens?

Bob Ainsworth: There is a legal obligation for the parents to pay the fine imposed on prosecution, so there is a deterrent, even for 14-year-olds.

Matthew Green: The Minister was touching on the idea of asking people to clean up their graffiti. One problem is that for some forms of graffiti, that would involve quite powerful chemicals, and there would be a health and safety issue. Some spray paints, unfortunately, take an enormous amount of activity to clean up, and only people who know what they are doing with those chemicals should use them. Unfortunately, that is one of the problems blocking the idea.

Bob Ainsworth: If we are thinking about restorative justice issues, we should consider practicalities, too. People who try to deter others from littering their area by drawing graffiti or fly posting need to take effective
 measures and move on. For all kinds of reasons, including those that the hon. Gentleman raises, that would not necessarily happen if the perpetrators were obliged to see to it that they put right and mended what they had done.

Caroline Flint: Will the Minister elaborate on the distinction between those over 14, for whom the fixed penalty notices may apply under the clause, and those under 14? I think that he said that the basis for the distinction was that those under 14 would not know whether they were doing wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has told me that in 20 years of teaching, he never found a child who did not know that it was wrong to deface a wall. I want us to take the opportunity to nip bad practice in the bud. We have talked a lot in Committee about how, if such behaviour is not nipped in the bud as early as possible, it can lead to worse offences, and possibly a prosecution under criminal law.

Bob Ainsworth: To be liable for a fixed penalty notice, an individual has to have committed a relevant offence. That takes us into the law that covers the criminal conviction of minors. Fixed penalty notices cross-reference with those laws. Although children are criminally responsible from the age of 10, those under 14 receive the benefit of a rule of common law that says that a child in that age group cannot be convicted, however uncontrollable or obnoxious his behaviour, unless he knows that what he was doing was either morally or legally wrong.
 A fixed penalty notice could be issued to a child on or after his 10th birthday, but if the child was not yet 14, the issuer would have to be able to show in court that the child knew that by creating graffiti or fly posting, he was acting wrongly. We would not be providing that quick fix, because the matter would have to be provable in court. That is an issue that we need to consider in terms of the age of criminal responsibility-the age at which people become responsible for their actions-rather than as part of what we are trying to do under the Bill, which is to attach fixed penalty notices to give local authorities usable powers, rather than having to use the court system. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, that question is relevant to such matters, as it is to others. 
 I do not know whether I have covered all the points that hon. Members have raised.

Annette Brooke: As the Minister was speaking I became concerned that not many of those notices will be issued. Will the Minister enlighten me about whether there are similar fines over which local authorities have such powers? For example, do some litter fines come under the same categories? My experience of local authorities is that they rarely implement their fining powers. Can the Minister give me an example of something that comes under the same category?

Bob Ainsworth: Local authorities have powers to issue fixed penalty notices for littering or dog fouling. The hon. Lady asked about the extent to which such powers are used and the extent to which local
 authorities apply fixed penalty notices. We might be able to shed some light on that when we come to Government amendment No. 244, through which we intend to allow people to keep the money that is generated and to plough it back into services. That might lead to a step change in the extent to which some of those powers are used.
 I think that I have covered all the points, so I had better sit down. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - Penalty receipts

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 244, in
clause 50, page 38, line 8, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 9 and insert 
 'may use any sums it receives in respect of penalties payable to it in pursuance of notices under section 48(1) (its ''penalty receipts'') only for the purposes of functions of its that are qualifying functions. 
 (4) The following are qualifying functions for the purposes of this section- 
 (a) functions under section 48, and 
 (b) functions of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate person. 
 (5) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may (in particular) have the effect that a local authority may use its penalty receipts for the purposes of any of its functions. 
 (6) A local authority must supply the appropriate person with such information relating to its use of its penalty receipts as the appropriate person may require. 
 (7) The appropriate person may by regulations- 
 (a) make provision for what a local authority is to do with its penalty receipts- 
 (i) pending their being used for the purposes of qualifying functions of the authority, 
 (ii) if they are not so used before such time after their receipt as may be specified by the regulations, 
 (b) make provision for accounting arrangements in respect of a local authority's penalty receipts. 
 (8) The provision that may be made under subsection (7)(a)(ii) includes (in particular) provision for the payment of sums to a person (including the appropriate person) other than the local authority. 
 (9) Before making regulations under this section, the appropriate person must consult- 
 (a) the local authorities to which the regulations are to apply, and 
 (b) such other persons as the appropriate person considers appropriate.'
 The clause currently requires a local authority to pay to the appropriate person-the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly in Wales-any sums that it receives in respect of fixed penalty notices issued for graffiti and fly posting. The amendment would remove that provision and allow the local authority instead to retain the receipts and use them for qualifying functions, which are the issuing of fixed penalty notices under clause 48 and such other functions as may subsequently be specified in regulations. Those could include wide functions 
 relating to graffiti, such as cleaning up the mess caused in the first place. 
 The intention behind the amendment is to encourage local authorities to use the power. I told the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that there were other circumstances in which local authorities could issue fixed penalty notices. Those are littering and dog fouling, which are detailed in the Local Government Bill, which is further through its parliamentary stages than this Bill. Those powers will not be available until that Bill receives Royal Assent.

Nick Hawkins: May I make a couple of points on the amendment and also touch on the clause, because I imagine that we shall not need a stand part debate? I am slightly puzzled that such a long and detailed amendment needed to be made now. I wonder whether the Minister could enlighten us on whether the matter was missed when the Bill was originally drafted. I am sure that the mistake was not his, but given that the amendment is much longer than most Government amendments-it is certainly longer than the others tabled to this Bill so far-I wonder whether there has been a change of mind, a mistake or whatever.
 In relation to penalty receipts and what happens to them, there are to be public service agreements between the Government and various authorities-in fact, such agreements might even already exist. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to give me details today, will he write to me and to any other members of the Committee who are interested and set out the terms of the public service agreements that are being made? Perhaps he can also give some examples of what happens between the Home Office and local and other types of authorities. 
 It would be useful to know because the way in which funds are transferred is a matter of interest, as evidenced by the attention being paid in all parts of the House to the changes that have been made to the rules on hypothecation. In the past, Her Majesty's Treasury has been reluctant for money to go anywhere other than back to the Treasury. I have always believed that Government funding can operate more sensibly if hypothecation is allowed. I have argued that many times, and the Minister has heard me doing so. I hope that he will be prepared to give some examples. If he is able to write to me in that respect, it will be very helpful.

Matthew Green: I am delighted that lamp posts are protected by two different Bills. They are protected from human antisocial behaviour by this Bill and from dogs by the Local Government Bill. Lamp posts will be delighted, but I wonder why the provisions could not be in the same Bill.
 The amendment is a good step forward. I hope that the principle will apply to other sections and that the provisions relating to education and truancy will be reviewed, because the money from the local education authorities could be used against truancy. As a general principle, it is good for the money from fines to be used to tackle the problems in relation to which they have been levied-so long as it is not seen as a quick 
 route to solving local government financing problems. The cost of administering fixed penalty notices will probably vastly outweigh the receipts from them; nevertheless, they are a good thing. I hope that the Government can reassure us that the principle will be applied to the fixed penalty notices that are issued in other circumstances.

John Randall: I welcome the amendment and the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath has a point-perhaps even the Minister is human and cannot always bring his wonderful powers to bear immediately.
 There are two questions that I would like to ask the Minister. He keeps mentioning that the appropriate person is the Secretary of State. Perhaps I am being incredibly dense, but I wonder which Secretary of State. 
 The other point is that, as Committee members will have understood, I have a deep and intimate knowledge of the retail sector in Uxbridge. Not long ago, one of its well-established companies had a bit of graffiti on one of its walls. That was removed at considerable expense; as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, it is not that easy to do. Although a company-or a private individual if it is on the side of a house-will, albeit not happily, accept that such removal has to be paid for, if it knows that the fine is going to the local authority, it will be less than impressed if the local authority does nothing in return. I hope that, in the wise words of the Minister, some way can be devised-not in the legislation-to enable local authorities to report back, and that some measure of guidance will be issued. If they are going to be in receipt of the funds, the authorities should provide a service for their ratepayers, whether businesses or council tax payers.

Bob Ainsworth: The Secretary of State to whom I have referred is the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As for why the measure has been proposed in an amendment, we consulted local authorities not only about the power but about the fact that they were interested in keeping the moneys collected. It took more time to reach a conclusion on the latter point than on the former one. We can effectively hypothecate the money and use it to as an incentive to the use of the powers.
 On the issue of education fixed penalty notices, it is our intention to allow for hypothecation, again by regulation. We must be mindful of the point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath raised about the degree to which we hypothecate both ring-fenced money and money without restrictions. The hon. Member for Uxbridge also raised that point. Where there are public service agreements and excellent councils, one would wish to offer more flexibility. We decided to deal with issues relating to education through regulation. There is, as is widely recognised, a far greater propensity to hypothecate these days. That is particularly true of recovered assets, which are hypothecated for use against criminal activity. There has been movement in Government thinking in that area. I think that that has to be welcomed. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Powers of police civilians

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 183, in
clause 51, page 38, line 14, leave out 'that subparagraph' and insert 'subparagraph (2)(c)'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 184.

Bob Ainsworth: Clause 51 gives powers to community support officers and selected accredited persons to issue fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting. As Members of the Committee know, those members of the extended police family were established under the Police Reform Act 2002. The amendments clarify the references to the relevant provisions of that Act.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister knows our concern, because we have debated it many times. People would prefer to see more police officers, rather than community support officers. We do not have a problem with the Government amendments, because we understand that community support officers exist and it is sensible that the powers are to be extended to what the Government call police civilians. However, we hope that the Government will listen to us when we debate these matters in other parts of the legislation in due course.

Annette Brooke: I rise because we have concerns about all fixed penalty notices. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about private employees having such powers, albeit on private land. Will all accredited officers, including Tesco-style police, come under the jurisdiction of the local authority or the police?

Bob Ainsworth: All accredited schemes must be approved by the local commander. That covers the individuals, and their powers.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his response. We have been over this ground before, but our concerns remain. We would prefer accredited officers to be employed by the local authority and the police through a mechanism that would tie them in. If that were case, we would not have all sorts of people issuing penalty notices. It is generally sensible to make use of community support officers on minor issues, which give so much irritation in the community.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 184, in 
clause 51, page 38, line 22, leave out 'that subparagraph' and insert 'subparagraph (2)(b)'.-[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
 Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.-[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 22 May at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.